An Analysis Of The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict Politics Essay

An Analysis Of The Nagorno Karabakh Conflict Politics Essay This dissertation focuses on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh; the origins of the conflict, its present state and the possible future. Throughout the dissertation several key aspects and theories of International relations are analysed, such as: peoples right to self determination, the concept of nation-state and conflict resolution. Firstly, the relevant theories of International relations are explored and an attempt is made to compare them with reality and to show their use in the real world. Secondly, a historical background of the conflict is described, followed by a description of the conflict from 1988 to 1995 and the peace talks. Thirdly, an analysis of the future of NK is examined, pointing out possible solutions and forms of reconciliation. Moreover, relevant questions are individually looked at. For over ten years NK has been on a path of nation-state building. NK sees itself as an independent republic, even with lack of international recognition. NK has a population of 141,000 and an area that covers 11,458.38  km2. (Official website of the President of NK, http://www.president.nkr.am/en/nkr/statePower/ , accessed on March 2, 2011). The map below show the situation of NK, they show both the NK Autonomous Oblast and the present NK state boundaries that include the occupied territories of Azerbaijan: As this dissertation deals with the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, it analyses and explores International Law concerning peoples right to self determination and the consequent recognition of their state. Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the United Nations Charter created in 1945 states that the aim of the UN is to: Develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. Article 1, part 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 states the following: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. (United Nations Charter 1945, available at: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ [accessed March 2 2011]) Moreover, the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 24th October 1970 declares that: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter. (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm [accessed march 2 2011]) The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people. (UN General Assembly, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970,  available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dda1f104.html  [accessed March 2 2011] ). These legal statements show the core understanding and acceptance of the international community regarding the idea of peoples right to self determination. Even though some core aspects of these declarations can be vague in their practical sense, their overall message is not contested. By taking into account these and other declarations, the case for the people of NK becomes clearer. Presently, the problem lies with the idea that NK peoples right to self determination collides with Azerbaijans right to sovereignty, so what is the solution? According to Dr. Otto Luchterhandt, the director of East European Research Department (University of Hamburg): The right to self-determination is not only a political principle but a rule of existing international law. The people of Nagorny Karabakh are the subject of the right to self-determination. The people of Nagorny Karabakh can claim for the highest level fulfilment of the law of self-determination secession from the state of Azerbaijan because on the one hand its restriction to the status of a national minority stands in no reasonable relation to its legitimate interests in development and protection, and on the other hand the measure of its oppression has reached such unbearable proportions, that remaining in the federation of Azerbaijan has become unacceptable and it has announced it will for self-determination in an unmistakable and convincing manner. (Luchterhandt, Nagorny Karabakhs Right to State Independence According to International Law, Boston, 1993) To use international law in a discussion in the case for NK, specific proof has to be shown. There is also the argument that juridical legitimacy of borders and territorial integrity works against the self-determination principle, however this cannot be taken into account in the case of Azerbaijan SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic). Firstly, it must be stated that NK was an autonomous oblast (an administrative unit) within the Azerbaijan SSR, and that Azerbaijan SSR was not defined by state borders, it was defined by administrative borders, therefore the Helsinki Agreement Final Act in 1975 concerning territorial integrity cannot be applied. As Francois Mitterrand said: Why should the interior administrative borders of a state be automatically recognised as international ones? (Zargarian,1999). Secondly, on the 31st August 19941 the Azerbaijan SSR confirmed the restoration of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan that had been created from 1918 to 1920. This declaration leaves to question the legality of the present Azerbaijans borders, including the territories of NK, territories surrounding NK and Nakhijevan, as none of these were part of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. In addition, it is well documented that in December 1920, Azerbaijan SSR accepted the territories of NK and Nakhijevan as belonging to Armenia. These declarations were later altered by Stalin, which at the times was Commissar of Nationalities. To further analyse, the value of state sovereignty of Azerbaijan should be graded as lower than the importance of sovereignty of a state in a normal situation, with reference to the system of states in the League of Nations, therefore it is lower than the NK peoples right to self determination. (Raschhofer, 1960) This notion gives support to the national right to self-determination of NKs people in right to secession over Azerbaijans state sovereignty. (Luchterhandt, 1993). To conclude, as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was founded after a referendum on state independence on 10th December 1991, resulting in a 98% acceptance, and in agreement with international and Soviet law, it should ultimately be acknowledged as genuine under international law. Moreover, precedent of Eritrea can be used, which showed that self proclamation leads to be under the power of international law. NK relationship with other countries, international organisations, and treaties such as the Geneva Convention, all give power for self-determination. HISTORY The name Nagorno-Karabakh has a mixture of 3 languages; Nagorno is in Russian meaning mountainous, and Karabakh is in Turkic and Farsi meaning Black Garden. However, the Armenians call it Artsakh, as it was one of the provinces of Greater Armenia, and it is mentioned as early as second century BC: the ancient provinces of Artsakh and Utik, situated between Lake Sevan, river Kara and river Araxes. (Strabo, 1st century BC.) During the centuries, NK has been mainly populated by ethnic Armenians, however there were periods in which during conquests other ethnic groups would settle, such as Caucasian Tatars, Caucasian Albanians (no connection to Albanians in Balkans), Persians and Turkic tribes. The recent conflict with Azerbaijan has unleashed a historical fact finding war, where the Azeris lay historical claims to these lands, and the Armenians refute them. The people living in NK point out to the obvious evidence, such as hundreds of ruins, ancient monuments, religious building, churches and monasteries. (Tchilingirian,1999). As one farmer said in regard to this: This monastery (Monastery of Gandzasar) kept us Armenian, the writings on these walls made us know who we are. There is a khachkar (cross-stone), the size of a car, on top of this mountain; our ancestors placed it there to indicate that this is Armenian land (Martakert, 1995). To review the history of Artsakh a new dissertation can be written, therefore to keep in line with this dissertation, a review of more recent history is made. After 1918, when the Georgians, Armenians and Azeris took advantage of the chaos of the Russian Revolution to establish independent states, war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, however by 1921 all three republic were under the rule of the Red Army. (Swietochowski, 1985) Originally, the Bolsheviks determined NKs problem: The Chairman of the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee (Azrevkom), Narimanov declared: The government of Workers and Peasants of Azerbaijan, having heard the news of the proclamation in Armenia in the name of the insurgent peasantry of the Soviet Socialist Republic, salutes the victory of the fraternal Armenian people. From this day forward, the former borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan are suspended. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan are recognized as integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia. Long live the fraternity and union of workers and peasants of Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan. (L. Chorbajian, P. Donabedian, C. Mutafian, 1994) The decision by Narimanov was acclaimed by the ethnic Armenians which thought that it was a fair decision. Moreover, Narimanov declared: no territorial conflict will cause bloodshed between these two age-old neighbourly peoples. ( Chorbajian, Donabedian, Mutafian, 1994). Yerevans central authority henceforth declared: Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom)à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia (Libaridian, 2004) This announcement was never realised, even if it was at the beginning supported by Stalin. Stalins view was that Karabagh should be given to Azerbaijan, in an effort to increase friendly relations with Turkey, which by then had aspirations to be a communist state. (Lane, 1992) It must be understood that Turks and Azeris are ethnically the same people. Even though the decision over NK was reached on July 4th 1921 in the Kavburo (Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party): Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom)à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia (Libaridian, 2004) The Kars and Moscow treaties were signed in October, giving Azerbaijan the control of NK. Thus, NKs Armenian populations (90% of NK) desire to unite with Armenia was ignored, creating ethnic tensions that would eventually end in full scale war. The Armenians tried to relocate NK to Armenia SSR in 1929, 1935, 1963, 1966, 1977 and 1987. The main reasons were the anti-Armenian discrimination, demographic shifts and economic underdevelopment. (Ulubabian, 1994) The Armenian population had declined by 25% from 1920 to 1979, due to hardships created by these discriminatory attitudes. The modern conflict started on February 1988, when due to the glasnost policy created by Gorbachev and its subsequent openness, the NK authorities asked to transfer the NK Autonomous Oblast to Armenia SSR. The reaction in Azerbaijan SSR was negative, as in 13th June it rejected this demand, on the other hand Armenia SSR on 15th June gave acceptance to this request. Due to the argument between Azerbaijan SSR and Armenia SSR, Moscow had to decide, and since Articles 73 and 78 of the 1977 USSR Constitution states that borders may only be changed if both republics agree on the change, NK stayed under Azerbaijans SSR authority, until the Soviet Union broke down in 1991. The conflict itself started with violence and ethnic-cleansing, with guerrilla warfare. Pogroms against Armenians started in Sumgait (near Baku) in February 1988 and in January 1990 in Baku. The Armenians of Baku (approximately 220,000) and from other parts of Azerbaijan were forced to flee, except in areas of NK. In return, Azeris in Armenia (160,000) were forced to leave, however no pogroms and mass violence was recorded, unlike in Baku. It was not until Yeltsin came to power that Russia sided with the Armenians, as before the USSR broke down the USSR Army was helping the Azeris. The Russians helped the Armenians with weapons, fuel and logistical support. The reason the Russians sided with the Armenians was because it was against Azerbaijans pro-Turkey and pro-Western positions. (Betts, 1999). Russias view was that Armenia was its only ally in the South Caucasus, and due to its geopolitical situation in regard to Turkey in Iran, help should be given. Full scale war broke out between 1991 and 1994 among the Azeri Army and the irregular Armenian guerrilla fighters. At the beginnings of 1992 the Azeris were in control of nearly half of NK, forcing out Armenian civilians as they advanced. Spring 1992 was when the advantage turned towards the Armenians, as their offensive pushed the Azeris to retreat. Once the city of Shushi was captured in May 8 1992, the Armenians had control of NK and the surrounding territories. It must be noted that the Armenian side was mostly fought by guerrilla fighters, which did not respond to any central authority in NK or Armenia. Most of the fighters or Fedayeen (Freedom Fighters), as the Armenians call them, were ordinary people without training or military weapons. The Armenians were helped by the Diaspora, which sent money, weapons and volunteers to help. The Azeri side brought mercenaries from Chechnya and mujahedeen from Pakistan and Afghanistan (approximately 3,000 fighters). (Taarnby, Michael. 2008 ) In May 1994 a cease fire was signed with Russia as intermediary in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The ceasefire was signed by the Azerbaijani authorities and General Babayan from the NK Armed forces. The result of the war was that the Armenians ended up controlling 20% of Azerbaijans territory. An estimated 4,500 people died and 25,00 wounded from the Armenian side, and an estimated 30,000 died and 60,000 wounded on the Azeri side. (De Waal, 2003). CEASE FIRE AND PEACE TALKS Before the ceasefire agreement mediated by Russia, several attempts were made to find a solution. The first attempt was by Boris Yeltsin and Nursultan Nazarbayev on September 1991, it gave no fruit. Next mediation was by Iran on February 1992. Since Irans historical relationship with both the Armenians and the Azeris was close, it attempted to increase its dominance in the region, especially to push Turkey aside. The Tehran conference did not reach to any agreement. After this, CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) started to arbitrate, it also pressed Iran out of the negotiations, as the latter was not a member of CSCE, On August 1992, Nazarbayev tried again, but the mediation led to nowhere. CSCE tried on several occasions from 1992 until December 1994 to reach an agreement for both sides, but its inexperience and Russias parallel involvement made it fail. From May 1994, when the ceasefire was signed, several propositions were laid on the negotiation table, but NK was only to agree to a complete package, while Azerbaijan pushed for a step by step approach. (Mo oradian, 1999) To date, there has been no concrete agreement between the two parts. The main mediator is the Minsk Group, created in 1993 by the CSCE (now OSCE), even though the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have met on various occasions, NKs government is still left out of any negotiations. CAN KOSOVO BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE? After the recognition of Kosovos independence, many other de facto states looked closely to see if it would set an example. Even though the states that have recognised Kosovo state that Kosovo cannot be used as a precedent, others may argue that it can and has. The main reason the international community uses to implicate the uniqueness of Kosovo is that it has been under UN and international control, while other de facto states like NK, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have not. To analyse the relevance of Kosovo, a comparison is made. The similarities with NK are various: both consist of a minority that sees itself discriminated, both conflicts started in an era of transition brought by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both held referendums and used the peoples right to self determination idea. The differences must also be noted: NK can argue that before the transition era, it already was an Autonomous Oblast. NK has existed for longer, with relative better stability, and has made more progress on state-building, even though it received less international attention and financial support. (Murinson, 2004) Other differences are that NK is not accepted as a negotiating part in the peace process, Armenia acts as its representative. It can be argued that the Kosovo can be used as an example of a state gaining independence, however, the international community argues that it is a unique case, however this does not limit the political ramifications it has brought. Kosovos independence has given hope to other de facto states, who argue that in all, they should have a better chance in gaining independence than Kosovo. As the former President of NK stated: If the world community is ready to recognize the independence of Kosovo, I think it will be very hard for them to explain why they do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh (Yakubyan, 2006) And as the Speaker of NK Parliament said: A serious basis for the international recognition of our sovereignty, we have held free elections for 16 years, law-enforcement bodies are formed, powers are divided, [the] army is under civil control (Karabakh Has Serious Grounds for International Recognition of Sovereignty «, in: Karabakh Open, 20 February 2008) To explain why Kosovo deserves international recognition and other de facto states in very similar positions do not is very hard, even by the same international community that accepted Kosovos independence. The reasons can vary from the official statement that Kosovo has been under international control, while other have not, but it is also correct to assume that other factors such as mutual interests among regional powers. Russias involvement in the NK peace process has many times thrown the Minsk Groups propositions away, as Russia can benefit from the no peace no war situation over NK: it sells arms and heavy weaponry to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, arming both sides. WHY HAS ARMENIA NOT RECOGNISED NKS INDEPENDENCE? This question is very interesting in the sense that it would be logical that Armenia should be the first country in recognising the independence of NK, however there is one main reason of why it has not. The official Armenian response to these questions is that since Armenia has started: An international legal process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh  conflict, and this is why Armenia has still not recognized the enclaves independence It  is for  the  same reason that Armenia has not recognized the independence of Kosovo, Oleg   Yesayan,   Armenian   ambassador   to   Belarus. (Alima Bissenova. (2008). Armenia links issue of Abkhazia, S. Ossetia to N.-Karabakh. Available: http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=taxonomy/term/4page=6. Last accessed 20th January 2011.) However, due to the recent statements by Azerbaijan of taking NK back by force has made the Armenian side declare that it would recognise NK if war started: Armenia is categorically against a military resolution of the problem. In the event Azerbaijan unleashes a new military venture, Armenia will have no other choice but to recognize de jure the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and provide for the safety of its population through all means, President of Armenia, Serge Sarkisian Astana, Kazakhstan, December 2010. EuroAsia. (2010). Armenia Says Will Recognize Karabakh In Case Of War. Available: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62556. Last accessed 20th January 2011 One could argue that Armenia should recognise NK, in the same manner as Russia has recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The recognition of NK would give Armenia legal right to aid NK in case war started with Azerbaijan. Moreover, some argue that if Armenia does not recognise NK in the foreseeable future, the status and issue of NK could be forgotten to history, as it would lose its momentum in the pursuit for recognition. RECOMENDATIONS From the overall analysis of the NK conflict and other similar conflicts around the world, some basic and concrete to the NK case recommendations can be made: OSCE and other international peace organisations should look to include NK in the negotiation process as an independent actor, like they did with the ceasefire agreement. International organisations should pave the way to stipulate better assurances for non resumption of armed conflict. The line of fire should be closely observed for ceasefire violations. Programs should be developed in order to teach both societies about tolerance, reconciliation and mutual respect. International organisations should look to integrate the public in debates and discussions, and rely less on top-down approaches. (Faber, 2005) International organisations should push for a peacekeeping force to be deployed on the contact line, it should also try to organise a new referendum under the eyes of international observers, henceforth push for a lawful democratisation and a peace settlement. (Freizer, 2006) Governments in Armenia, NK, and Azerbaijan should start to include conflict resolution and prevention, peace building and peacekeeping, human rights programmes at schools and universities, in order to increase public awareness. NGOs should create projects along with the civil society to educate the population about the conflict and conciliation for peace. Finally, an international recognition of NK would ensure a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and would make NK answerable to international law. Moreover, NK would have access to loans from the IMF or the WB, thus being able to develop better as a state. Open borders with Azerbaijan would bolster trade, and maybe bring trust between the people. CONCLUSION The conflict of NK is very complicated to be able to analyse without going into much detail. There are many arguments for and against certain strategies, using international law, international recognition, state sovereignty, refugees, and many others, but one thing is being ignored; the fact that NK has been acting like any other recognised democratic state for over 15 years. NKs human rights violations, degree of democracy and transparency and corruption are all better than Armenia or Azerbaijan, (Freedom House, 2011) yet still there is little advance among the international community in recognising NK. Some may add that the West uses double standards: Weve got used to the double standards of the West. I believe that the people of South Ossetia have much more reason for gaining independence than the Kosovan Albanians. (Yuri Morozov, Prime Minister of South Ossetia). In my opinion, the West does not fully use double standards, but approaches the question very surgically, since it und erstands the uniqueness of every conflict, and that it could be disastrous to use one peace settlement in another area, as every conflict has its own inimitable dynamics. I think that NK pace to independence is correct, as sooner or later it will have to be recognised, it should continue developing its government in order to set an example. In the near future two outcomes are possible, either an international recognition of NK or war will break out, it is inevitable, as both sides continue arming themselves, therefore it in my opinion it is in the best interest that of the international community to prevent such hostilities by recognizing NK. As Chekov said: If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise dont put it there. (A. P. Chekhov, in Teatr i iskusstvo 1904, No. 28, 11 July, p. 521)

Cooking Is My Hobby Essay

I enjoy cooking because it keeps me happy in my life. Whenever I feel sad or upset, cooking ease that for me in a big way. I started cooking when I was 6, but it was as simple as putting ham and cheese between 2 slices of bread and used my favorite condiment of maynaise and let it heat up for about 30 seconds. When I grew older, my knowledge of food grew to new depths when I learned how to cook American food on the grill when I was 13 and my dad was the sole reason why I got better since he explained to me how to use temperature control. The 1st dish I made on my own without any kind of assistance was Alaskan Cod with Lemon Pepper which I enjoyed very much when it was baked in an oven. Now, in my college years, I evolved into making cursine in many cultures such as tacos from Mexico, crepes from France, peking duck from China, and pizza from Italy using my ingredients I purchased from HEB, Fiesta, or Chinatown in my hometown. Cooking is the only thing in which I know how to do best and I usually cook for my family, relatives, friends, or people whom I do not know. Sometimes, I cook multiple of one thing for homeless people and disturbute them across the city. My least favorite thing to cook is vegetables since I do not like them, but if someone requests them on their plate, I will not be unwilling to cook them. Instead, I would embrace their desires and make it for them. I have invested hours of my time per day to be more knowlegable about different cooking methods from various chefs instead of just one in order to be prepared for different styles of cooking and perferences from guests. My signature dish is pork and leek dumplings with either soy sauce or vinegar or my orange chicken with basil and coconut broth so if you are ever in my area, I will be willing to cook for you.

Definition and Examples of Noun (Nominal) Clauses

In English grammar, a noun clause is a  dependent clause that functions as a noun (that is, as a subject, object, or complement) within a sentence. Also known as a nominal clause. Two common types of noun clause in English are that-clauses and wh-clauses: that-clause: I believe that everything happens for a reason.wh-clause: How do I know what I think, until I see what I say? Examples and Observations of Noun Clauses When Mrs. Frederick C. Littles second son arrived, everybody noticed that he was not much bigger than a mouse. (E.B. White, Stuart Little, 1945)What I like doing most of all in the evenings, these days, is sitting in a gormless stupor in front of the television, eating chocolate.  (Jeremy Clarkson, The World According to Clarkson. Penguin Books, 2005)A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students. (John Ciardi, Saturday Review, 1966)I know that there are things that never have been funny, and never will be. And I know that ridicule may be a shield, but it is not a weapon.  (Dorothy Parker)I believe that there is a subtle magnetism in Nature, which, if we unconsciously yield to it, will direct us aright.  (Henry David Thoreau, Walking)The thought of stars contributed to the power of his feeling. What moved him was a sense of those worlds around us, our knowledge however imperfect of their nature, our sense of their possessing some grain of our past and of our lives to come.  (John Cheever, Oh What a Paradise It Seems. Random House, 1982)Whoever was the person behind Stonehenge was one dickens of a motivator, Ill tell you that. (Bill Bryson, Notes From a Small Island. Doubleday, 1995)How we remember, what we remember, and why we remember form the most personal map of our individuality.  (Christina Baldwin)How people knew when they were being trailed he found himself unable to imagine. (Edmund Crispin [Robert Bruce Montgomery], Holy Disorders, 1945)This is the story of what a Womans patience can endure, and of what a Mans resolution can achieve. (Wilkie Collins, The Woman in White, 1859)I knew exactly how clouds drifted on a July afternoon, what rain tasted like, how ladybugs preened and caterpillars rippled, what it felt like to sit inside a bush.† (Bill Bryson, The Life and Times of the Thunderbolt Kid. Broadway Books, 2006)That dogs, low-comedy confederates of small children and ragged bachelors, should have t urned into an emblem of having made it to the middle class—like the hibachi, like golf clubs and a second car—seems at the very least incongruous. (Edward Hoagland, Dogs, and the Tug of Life) Nominal Clauses as Direct Objects All sentences, then, are clauses, but not all clauses are sentences. In the following sentences, for example, the direct object slot contains a clause rather than a noun phrase. These are examples of nominal clauses (sometimes called noun clauses):​I know that the students studied their assignment.I wonder what is making Tracy so unhappy.These nominal clauses are examples of dependent clauses—in contrast to independent clauses, those clauses that function as complete sentences.(Martha Kolln and Robert Funk, Understanding English Grammar, 5th ed., Allyn and Bacon, 1998)A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars. (James Surowiecki, Home Free? The New Yorker, September 22, 2014) Noun-Clause Starters We use various words to start noun clauses. . . .These words include the word that, which in its role as a noun clause starter is not a relative pronoun, for it serves no grammatical role in the clause; it just starts the clause. For example: The committee stated that it would follow the agents policy. Here the noun clause serves the noun role of direct object of the transitive verb stated. But a careful look at the clause reveals that the word that does not serve any role within the clause, other than simply to get it going.Other noun clause starters do serve grammatical roles within the clause. For example: We know who caused all the trouble. Here the noun clause starter is the relative pronoun who. Notice that inside the noun clause who serves as the grammatical subject of the verb caused.Additional words serve as noun clause starters. A relative adverb can get one going: How he won the election mystified the pundits. So can a relative pronoun acting as an adjective: We know which career she will pursue. In these two sentences, how is an adverb modifying the verb won, and which is a relative-pronoun-adjective modifying the noun career.(C. Edward Good, A Grammar Book for You and I--Oops, Me!  Capital Books, 2002)I have run,I have crawled,I have scaled these city walls,These city wallsOnly to be with you,Only to be with you.But I still havent found what Im looking for.(written and performed by U2, I Still Havent Found What Im Looking For. The Joshua Tree, 1987)

What Are Megalithic Monuments

Megalithic means large stone and in general, the word is used to refer to any huge, human-built or assembled structure or collection of stones or boulders. Typically, though, megalithic monument refers to monumental architecture built between about 6,000 and 4,000 years ago in Europe, during the Neolithic and Bronze ages. The Many Uses for Megalithic Monuments Megalithic monuments are among the earliest and most permanent of archaeological structures, and so many of them were used, or more properly, have been used and reused for thousands of years. Their original intent is likely lost to the ages, but they may have had multiple functions as they were used by different cultural groups over the centuries and millennia. In addition, few, if any, retain their original configuration, having been eroded or vandalized or quarried or added to or simply modified for reuse by subsequent generations. The thesaurus compiler Peter Marc Roget categorized megalithic monuments as memorials, and that may very well indeed have been a primary function of these structures. But megaliths clearly had and have multiple meanings and multiple uses over the thousands of years that they have stood. Some of the uses include elite burials, mass burials, meeting places, astronomical observatories, religious centers, temples, shrines, processional lanes, territory markers, status symbols: all of these and others that well never know are certainly part of the uses for these monuments today and in the past. Megalithic Common Elements Megalithic monuments are quite varied in makeup. Their names often (but not always) reflect a major part of their complexes, but archaeological evidence at many of the sites continues to reveal previously unknown complexities. The following is a list of elements that have been identified at megalithic monuments. A few non-European examples have been thrown in for comparison as well. Cairns, mounds, kurgans, barrows, kofun, stupa, tope, tumuli: all of these are different cultural names for man-made hills of earth or stone generally covering burials. Cairns are often differentiated from mounds and barrows as stone piles-but research has shown that many cairns spent part of their existence as mounds: and vice versa. Mounds are found on every continent on planet earth and date from the Neolithic to recent times. Examples of mounds include Priddy Nine Barrows, Silbury Hill and Maeves Cairn in the United Kingdom, Cairn of Gavrinis in France, Maikop in Russia, Niya in China and Serpent Mound in the United States.Dolmens, cromlechs, rostral columns, obelisks, menhir: single large standing stones. Examples are found at Drizzlecombe in the UK, Morbihan Coast of France and Axum in Ethiopia.Woodhenges: a monument made of concentric circles of wooden posts. Examples include Stanton Drew and Woodhenge in the UK and Cahokia Mounds in the United States)Stone circles, cystoliths : a circular monument made of free-standing stones. Nine Maidens, Yellowmeade, Stonehenge, Rollright Stones, Moel Ty Uchaf, Labbacallee, Cairn Holy, Ring of Brodgar, Stones of Stenness, all in the United KingdomHenges: a parallel ditch and bank pattern of construction, generally circular in shape. Examples: Knowlton Henge, Avebury.Recumbent stone circles (RSC): Two vertical stones, one horizontal placed between them to watch the moon as it slides along the horizon. RSCs are specific to northeastern Scotland, sites like East Aquorthies, Loanhead of Daviot, Midmar Kirk.Passage tombs, shaft tombs, chambered tombs, tholos tombs: architectural buildings of shaped or cut stone, generally containing burials and sometimes covered with an earthen mound. Examples include Stoney Littleton, Waylands Smithy, Knowth, Dowth, Newgrange, Belas Knap, Bryn Celli Du, Maes Howe, Tomb of the Eagles, all of which are in the UK.Quoits: two or more stone slabs with a capstone, sometimes representing a buria l. Examples include Chun Quoit; Spinsters Rock; Llech Y Tripedd, all in the UKStone rows: linear paths made by placing two rows of stones on either side of a straight pathway. Examples at Merrivale and Shovel Down in the UK.Cursus: linear features made by two ditches and two banks, generally straight or with doglegs. Examples at Stonehenge, and a large collection of them in the Great Wold Valley.Stone cists, stone boxes: smallish square boxes made of stone which contained human bones, cists may represent what was the interior part of a larger cairn or mound.Fogou, souterrains, fuggy holes: underground passageways with stone walls. Examples at Pendeen Van Fogou and Tinkinswood in the UKChalk giants: a type of geoglyph, images carved into the white chalk hillside. Examples include the Uffington White Horse and the Cerne Abbas Giant, both in the UK. Sources Blake, E. 2001 Constructing a Nuragic Locale: The Spatial Relationship between Tombs and Towers in Bronze Age Sardinia. American Journal of Archaeology 105(2):145-162. Evans, Christopher 2000 Megalithic Follies: Soanes Druidic Remains and the display of monuments. Journal of Material Culture 5(3):347-366. Fleming, A. 1999 Phenomenology and the megaliths of Wales: A dreaming too far? Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18(2):119-125. Holtorf, C. J. 1998 The life-histories of megaliths in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Germany). World Archaeology 30(1):23-38. Mens, E. 2008 Refitting megaliths in western France. Antiquity 82(315):25-36. Renfrew, Colin 1983 The social archaeology of megalithic monuments. Scientific American 249:152-163. Scarre, C. 2001 Modeling Prehistoric Populations: The Case of Neolithic Brittany. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20(3):285-313. Steelman, K. L., F. Carrera Ramirez, R. Fabregas Valcarce, T. Guilderson and M. W. Rowe 2005 Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from northwest Iberia. Antiquity 79(304):379-389. Thorpe, R. S. and O. Williams-Thorpe 1991 The myth of long-distance megalith transport. Antiquity 65:64-73.